Thursday, November 10, 2005

Christian Nonsense about Evolution and the Bible

It seems that flaws in the specific details of the theory of evolution drive Christian fundamentalists into a frenzy of denials. The idiocy of this approach to a science that is still in its infancy will be apparent to anyone who knows anything about the development of science -- every science has flaws and every science will always have flaws. The fact is that evolutionary biology is a science that covers a enormous time span in which only bits and pieces of the past are preserved in the fossil record.

In recent years, DNA research has given biologists a tool to work with that allows them to test for similarities in the genetic codes of extant species allowing for inferences from properties of contemporary species to hypotheses of common origins. This puts them in much the same position that historical linguists are in. We have the languages spoken today and a fossil record (i. e., extant writings which are sometimes extensive in nature and sometimes consisting of just bits of writing) and it is possible to infer from similarities among sets of extant spoken languages to the possibility of a common origin and sometimes it is even possible to infer splits, as in the case of IndoEuropean ultimately splitting into the Romance family, the Germanic family, the Slavic family, etc. These hypotheses can be checked against the linguistic "fossil" record. BUT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO PROVE THE CORRECTNESS OF THE DETAILS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE EVOLUTION OF LANGUAGES BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT BECAUSE WE ARE DEALING WITH INSUFFICIENT DATA TO SUPPORT SUCH ACCOUNTS. THE SAME IS TRUE OF THE THEORY OR THEORIES OF EVOLUTION.

I think that nonscientists or even scientists with some sort of religious agenda hold sciences to standards of proof that that are considerably higher than any historical science can meet. Meanwhile they provide ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF OF THE ACCOUNTS OF THE BIBLE which Christians purport provides a historical record. Sorry boys and girls, that game is not on. You must hold Biblical accounts of the origin of the universe and of humans to the same high standards you hold historical sciences too. You won't do that because you know you have virtually no independent evidence in support of your views. If there were a God and if it were important to Him that we believe that he exists and is all powerful, then why the hell doesn't he just put on a demonstration for us that constitutes an unmistakable miracle? The demonstration I keep waiting for is an overnight movement of Ohio Stadium, where the Ohio State Buckeyes play football, from the side of the Olentangy River it is currently on to the other side, including a rerouting if necessary of the Olentangy River and the Olentangy River Road. This should be an easy thing for a God capable of creating a universe to do but we never see demonstrations like this. From which I infer that if there is a God, He doesn't give a damn whether we believe in Him or not.

I have long since lost the reference but when I was in grad school in the mid 60's I read that the clicks of certain South African languages proved that Blacks were not human since known human languages did not have them. Sadly, for these missionaries, their lily White children, as they played with the S. African children they lived among, learned these languages including the clicks.

Of course these are language sounds. They, if anything, prove the superiority of S. African speakers since production of them involves creating a vacuum in the space between two stopages of air flow and then releasing them.

I met a S. African who had escaped from that despicable White-dominated country (at the time) who tried to teach me to make clicks. It was tough but I mastered one -- the initial sound of Xhosa, the name of the language he spoke.

I was a bit unclear in my first paragraph. The White missionaries were the ones who took the evidence of clicks as evidence that Blacks weren't totally human until their children's learning the languages proved them wrong. It was part of these good religious people's effort to support the subordination of S. Africans to White Europeans.

Staying on the topic of evolution, I should refer you to a document from the New York Times put up at The Leakey Foundation site.

A small point, if I may. You're hammering on Christians but all religions have their creation myths. The reason that Chrstianity comes up so often in this debate is that it's Christians who are pushing for this here. I'm all for requiring a curriculum (intro to religion?) that teaches about all religions' creation myths and their various rituals, etc... That would be hugely beneficial to our mutual undersanding of one another and that's something I think this country and the world sorely needs.

From American Heritage: Science; The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

Since you cannot do experimental investigation on the notion of intelligent design it does not meet the dictionary definition of the word science. Therefore, like counting angels on the head of a pin in belongs in the realm of theology/philosophy. I humbly posit that those pushing for this as a science need to read the definition of the word.

Click consonants are/were used in all 27 of the Khoisan languages and have been borrowed into several of the neighboring Bantu languages. The overall population of Khoisan speakers is about 350,000-400,000, but many of the Khoisan languages are on the verge of extinction; seven of the above total are already extinct, and four will probably die out in the next few decades. Nama has the largest number of speakers at roughly 1/4 million, found primarily in Namibia.

The click consonants in the Khoisan languages are real consonants, and at the extreme end, Ju/’hoan has 30-40 of them. They function just like any other consonants.

the thing that really gets me about the fundamentlist Christian is they talk about faith & belief all the time. Then try so hard to prove it, using our standards. Like looking for Noah's Ark & the Shroud of Turin, etc. The last time I taught a sunday school class was when I threw out the question, "would you still have Faith if the Bible was shown to be false?(A theroritical(sp) question of course) after all the talk about faith, talk about a pissed off bunch. I left the church soon after.

Excellent post LG...excellent post andyt (i'm a huge advocate of reforming public education and i've many a times suggested the same "intro to ALL religion" in a public setting, and, even, a truly open campus style education where students are not bound by specific requirements and schedules, check out Evergreen College in Washington for a quality model as to new evaluation methods)

Well LG, let me see if I have this right. You and many others are basing a belief of how we humans have gotten to where we are now on; Writings by humans that are supposed to be experts in their field of study. These humans then claim that they know what they are saying can be easily challenged and discredited because there is insufficient evidence to completely prove their theory. Then this group of human experts tells us to just have faith in them and if given enough time they will prove their theory correct but then they say it may take millions of years to duplicate the experiment. This whole argument sounds very familiar to me. It seems these same learned individuals are telling me that my faith in a superior and vastly more intelligent being cannot be true because the experts in that field of study can easily be challenged and discredited because there is insufficient evidence to completely prove their theory. That group of human experts also says to me to have faith in them and given enough time their theory will be proven correct. I have no answer for this dilemma other than live your life and prove it to yourself what group of experts you choose to believe.

the problem though, is one of psychology, and the effects on behavior that our mental pictures create...

JG, yer a prime example of what i mean...and , i dont mean that youre wrong or right, that is irrellevant to my point..

(okay, i'll stop with all the periods...)

JG has told us directly that, in her mind, she pictures a reality which is based upon a hierarchy, at the top is God--

this carries a whole world of deductions and assumptions about behavior and how to relate to the world, mostly related to scripture and whatnot...

thats kewl, if thats wut ya wanna doo...yer right...go ahead, do it..

the problem comes in when, as we all admit, the foundation of that mental picture is speculation AND we use that speculation as JUSTIFICATION for particular behaviors,

specifically,

when we use our mental picture to justify restricting the freedom of OTHER PEOPLE through government, violence, lacerating verbage, n whatever...THEN, we create unnecessary conflict...

(i lied about the ...)

unecessary conflict not only because we all admit that both science and religion give incomplete mental pictures, but,

unecessary conflict because, as psychology has shown us, most often, if you let people be, they let you be, if you lead by example, they follow, if you preach, they rebel, if you punish, they rebel, if you restrict freedom long enuff, hard enuff, THEY KILL...and thus the human race has perpetuated its own sick cyclical regurgitation of violence and oppression ALL BECAUSE:

j_g, I must assume you are intentionally misrepresenting my position since it isn't remotely close to any I have advocated here. I do not have faith in any scientific hypothesis whatever. I have promised a blog showing that scientfic theories are and always will be defective in one way or another and so it would be stupid to have faith in them. One relies on their results for various purposes -- for example, in building a bridge or sending people to the moon. We rely on those beliefs for those reasons because they have proved reliable FOR THOSE PURPOSES. Please do not misrepresent my position again. Create your own damn blog if you want to engage in that sort of crap.

again, a result of mental pictures and subsequent effects on behavior.

personally, whenever i engage in debate of philisophical/political nature, my motive and intent is not to prove self "right," rather, it is centered around the hope that i can persuade others to simply let others live as they seek to live without making efforts to control anything but their own action...

JG's motivation, her intentions, are obviously an attempt to not only prove the unprovable, but to get everyone else on the same page, and, obviously, since she takes so much pride in her experience, is willing to militaristically engage in physical warfare when the time is right in order to fight for her mental imagery...because, as they no doubt will, when wars of words fail, the most insecure and false mental pictures will seek a way to transcend, to materialize, to create some concrete existence that justifies their fictitious mental picture....this usually means materializing a reality where those who refused to agree are dead on a bloody battlefield and the false ones can scream things like,

"Victory! Check and Mate!"

and, unfortunately, the things they see will confirm their mental picture of things because those who sought to simply be, will be dead at their stomping feet...

the devil's greatest trick was never to convince the world he didnt/doesnt exist...

what would be the power in that?

the devil's greatest trick was/is to convince the world he is God, that way he gets a whole lot of faithful followers with which to conquer His kingdom with....

Why must people see any of The Theories Of Evolution as being contrary to Intelligent Design?Take the original paraphrase of Darwin, "Survival of the fittest".You can consider this process to be analogous to the decryption of a code.An original source is produced (by unknown means, usually marked by scientists as "a singularity" and relgious people as "a designer"), analagous to the proteins that first governed single-celled organisms, and cyphers have to be used to decode the source into something that can be understood - some may argue this to be analagous to sencience or simply more complicated life.Multiple cyphers may appear to work but unfortunately develop weak, or superceeded, translations of the original source. Explaining the sheer variety of species and extinct species on Earth (and, I've got to say it, probably elsewhere).I like my analogy, it links nicely to what L.G was saying about Historical Linguists (well, I think so). Also, would just like to take an oppurtunity to thank L.G for providing a very interesting and amusing blog - in especiality the George Bush post.

Insightful thoughts regarding the topic. If I may, I would like to leave some comments.

You ask for proof of a benevlant God, well I too ask for proof. Proof that a God truly exists or that He does not exist. In a society governed by flimsy principles and low quality ethos, it is not uncommon for one to lose sight of the world. A clear perception of the society and era that we live in is needed to truly appreciate the life we lead. Combating the moral values and faith-driven life of Christianity is the medley of humanistic philosophies that emphasize the existential quality that is inherent within ourselves. When faced with these persuasive thoughts, one is susceptible to sway. Truly I believe that you posed a good point regarding proof. "You must hold Biblical accounts of the origin of the universe and of humans to the same high standards you hold historical sciences too." I too search for life's answers to the tantalizing mysteries that I face everyday. However for me the answers are abound and plentiful. Perhaps not as blatant as moving a stadium, but evidence in a subtle light. Suppose that a compassionate and just God does not want to boast about His supernatural omnipotence, does that negate His existence? I don't think so. Proof is apparent in my life and in the lives of others who were touched by His saving Grace. I'm starting to sound like one of those "God is real. End of story" type of people. Trust me, I'm not. I just happen to be more inclined to lean towards a life of faith than a life full of doubt and relativity. Maybe I'm wrong and I am only deluding myself. Even so, is Christianity even all that bad? It is basically a philosophy that incorporates a deity. Anyway, I often wonder if proof in the scientific sense is ever needed to justify a statement. If one were to simplify science, isn't it just a slew of theories that tend to hold true? Does science justify all things? Perhaps concrete proof is not needed when a person changes his or her philosophical viewpoint to parallel a Christian theistic worldview? Do I need proof that I am changed? Or that I experience joy when I engage in a favorite pastime? Just some thoughts. I wonder, what are your thoughts about human existence? I see that you seem to hold high standards yourself regarding proof.

Geez, am I the only one? I never saw a "conflict" between beliefs in evolution and ID and I don't recall being presented with one by the nuns in my parochial school days. The assumption was that the science was accurate, but that God set it up that way. End of story.

Christianity never hurt anybody?Crusades?The Inquisition?Salem Witch Trials?Slavery [Come on, did the Church ever speak up against black slavery? No, because the Church is oppurtunistic and beauracratic]?

One of the main contributing factors for jihad and religious terrorism in this century (and all others for that matter) is the strict regime under which the Church has forced all other faiths.

Dave Y, one cannot prove the nonexistence of anything. On the other hand, one can prove the existence of something. Thus, for instance, I prove that I exist, where "I" refers to the author of this blog, simply by producing blogs.

This is why the burden of proof is on religous sorts who claim that some God exists. First they must adumbrate the properties that this God has and then produce this God or some array of facts that entail or, at lest, strongly imply the existence of God.

I think religious people look about the universe (the earth, visible planets, and stars) in awe (actually most of us do that, religious or not), find it totally mysterious (which it is) and seek for some understanding of how it could come about. They reach for the easiest possible explanation -- there must be a God that has the property that it is powerful enough to create a universe of enormous dimensions, as well as life, including sentient life. Now, if religious people cannot see how simplistic this is, then there is no hope for them. One must do better than that.

This "argument" leaves out one critical explanation -- namely an explantion for how it is that God came to be. Philosopers and theologians have wrestled with that for several thousand years. My favorite argument is Anselm's, which I repeatThe Argument - Dr. Scott H. Moore 1. One can imagine a being than which none greater can be conceived. 2. We know that existence in reality is greater than existence in the mind alone. 3. If the being we imagine exists only in our mind, then it is not a "being than which none greater can be conceived." 4. A being than which none greater can be conceived must also exist in reality. 5. Failure to exist in reality would be failure to be a being than which none greater can be conceived. 6. Thus a being than which none greater can be conceived must exist, and we call this being God.This argument can be found at this siteYour assignments for today tball game against Northwestern andis to refute this argument.

I rember that gem of philosophy. yes, very good L.Guy. I've heard it as the concept of a PERFECT being. I know this is off the track, but I've always wondered about our concept of perfection? Where did it come from?

Your example that uses human languages as an analogy for DNA research is a good one. However you omit to explain why you consider something created by humans (languages) to be analogous to something purported to have arisen "naturally"?

I could argue that the similarities you observe in these two domains is precisely because DNA reveals insights into the creative mind behind it, just as languages reveal and in fact are evidence of, human innovation and creation, would this not also be a consistent position to take?

Languages could not exist or develop without human intelligence being a part of the process. Even if we try to include crude communication systems used by chimps and apes, this research lacks any historical data so we cannot say if chimp/ape "languages" have ever changed or “developed” over the millennia.

Granted the process may have similarities in terms of how to deal with incomplete historic records but the analogy is bad one for a pro evolutionist to take I think, for the reasons outlined above.

I must also object to the incredibly sweeping statement "ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF OF THE ACCOUNTS OF THE BIBLE" you clearly have not read and certainly not studied these ancient scriptures, which as a linguist would be a rewarding experience for you from an academic standpoint alone.

There are a great many observations and archeological discoveries that bear out the scriptural records sometimes remarkably. The Hebrew Scriptures have been tremendously valuable to archeologists (believer and atheist alike).

The book of Daniel (penned in Aramaic) sheds valuable light on Babylonian history, kingly lineage and the ancient tribes of Israel’s interaction with Babylonian society; many archeological discoveries endorse what is recorded in Daniel and elsewhere.

Far too many critics of scripture are really, unwittingly criticizing "religion" for it is their only source of knowledge; rather than open mindedly investigating the source material, they choose to assume that "religions" faithfully represent what is written in scripture and this is almost always not the case.

The highly fragmented Christian faiths have done great harm and they have blindly disregarded what is actually written in these ancient documents, far too many people assume that because this "sect" claims this and that, that so to must the bible.

After all, the scriptures are by any standards ancient documents and technically precede any Christian church or sect in existence today. These documents cannot do any harm of themselves, and must be distinguished completely from the much later groups that claim to use it as their source of knowledge simply by association.

Don’t judge a book by those that advocate it.

Even in this day and age, it amazes me that very few individuals religious or atheist are aware that the opening chapters of Genesis do NOT claim that the universe and the earth were "made" in six days, it does not say that, but one must carefully examine the Hebrew and other sources in order to see this interpretation of the text.

However the historic forces that eventually shaped the translation (of many many passages) are complex and permeate not only our perception of the Bible but the very text itself, only the ancient source material are we able to reveal these changes.

I could talk about this more, but don't want to descend into a lecture (which I am not by any means qualified to give), suffice to say the NIV translation sheds a tiny bit of light on this; if you read Genesis 1:2 in an NIV Bible it clearly points out that the well known sentence:

"Now the earth was formless and empty..."

May just as validly be rendered

"Now the earth became formless and empty..."

There are many, many more examples of this, often a textual analysis sheds incredible light on things and changes the whole meaning of what is actually recorded.

By carefully exploring this and many have, it becomes clear that what is actually written (in Genesis and elsewhere) is something more or less like this (paraphrased in English)

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth (no date given). This earth was populated, inhabited by super beings called "angels". Eventually the earth became chaotic, confused and in turmoil and (spiritual darkness) dominated the world. This was a result of angelic disobedience and desire to rule without regard to Gods laws."

"God then set out to re-beautify the earth, restore it to its former state. God then decided (and it is written in the plural) Let us now make man, in our image, being like us (having god like attributes, creativity, intelligence, decision making capacities etc)".

As I say this is my own paraphrasing, but the underlying text is fully supportive of such a rendering.

When one combines numerous other scriptures, often in other books (OT & NT) it becomes quite valid to read that angels were created first in the very distant past, then the universe, matter and time were brought into existence (scripture fully supports this ordering of events). This may have been many billions of years ago; no hint at all is given of the timescales, it is also quite legitimate to conclude that the evidence we see today in fossils and other remnants that all kinds of animal life was created and thrived during this time, which clearly was billions of years based on the evidence we see today.

Then there was angelic rebellion and it was so bad that it became necessary to "recreate" re-beautify the earth and then create humans to populate it.

No time is given for how long the “recreating” took, so it is consistent with scripture to assume the demise of dinosaurs and other species may well have been part of this “clean up” but this is simply speculation.

None of this is in any way inconsistent with modern archeology, clearly the earth is ancient and many fossils are also ancient, and surprising as it may seem, this is exactly what the actual source material says, it does NOT say (as so many assume it does) that everything was created 6,000 years ago and in six days, it does not say that.

In every example of a so-called “biblical contradiction” it has been possible to resolve it, not fantastically, but simply by examining the reasonable options for translation and selecting the one this fits with the known data.

Because scripture has been discredited and is also blindly assumed to be ridiculous as a source of insight into the past, few people ever bother to actually do the right thing and study what is actually written, with an open mind.

It would be easier to study the 'Book' w/ an open mind if Christians didn't insist on making it the undisputable word of God. i have in my church days tried to do this but, was always shot down by pompus asses who would insist on some 'spiritual' or 'literal' meaning. No one in their right mind would deny it is a 'historical' document, anyway.It is the Christian context that has 'NO PROOF'

1- God cannot be proven nor disproven, lest he does come down for judgment

2-To attempt to prove God's existence is an attempt, as far as science is concerned, to prove that which is not observable, and, therefore, not within the bounds of science...Hence, I.D. has no place in a "science" class-end of debate-I.D. is for university level theology-not for brainwashing individuals during important stages of cognitive development in high school biology or whatever.

3-As if anyone would care: my personal problem with the religious portion of the population is their hypocrisy in action and behavior/Hugh's post only furthers the idea that most religions, esp christianity, have strayed from the "path" so to speak, or the true meaning of God and/or what It wanted...my beef is that people are self-centered oppressive assholes and they use God to justify their entire world view as well as their "right" to punish and damn people...

4-ironically, in all my life, the most kind, generous, caring, loving, forgiving, honest, the best human beings i've met, the most "godly," were pagans or atheists...most christians i've met have been angry, self-centered, self-absorbed, self-righteous, narcissistic, proud, pompous, hypocritical a$$holes out for preserving their "rich" life by any means possible, by manipulation of, devaluation of, degredation of, prejudice towards, and militaristic violence towards the lives of anyone who stands in their way...

5. One of my best friends in the world is a devout and faithful christian...he doesn't live what the false christian would believe is a "pure" life-that's not what godly behavior is really about-however, him and I both believe that we tend to be more "Christ-like" than most "false" christians, we treat all people with respect, show them love, feed and shelter the homeless, refuse to pass judgment...greed does not exist in our hearts...

on a personal level, i wouldn't much mind if the only laws this country had were,err...well, half the commandments, take out the stuff about worshipping God n whatnot, leave in the stuff about murder, theft, adultery n whatnot...

oh, but, wait, we couldn't outlaw adultery the same way we outlaw prostitution-good christ, what would that do to the "moral majority," all those "good christian families," their leaders out there cheating on their spouses? they'd go to jail with whores, and we can't have that...

grrrr...i'm getting long winded...

i would write a book about all this, i have all the ideas up there, i just don't have the degree yet to earn the respect of people like...oh...i don't know...say a J_G...

it's funny hugh, in arguing for ID you claimed people don't "make their own curriculum" in education, their spoon fed...

perhaps that because when you rail against ALL DEMANDS TO CONFORM as I have, you get damned to a physical existence of material nothingness, imprisonment, and social ostracization...

fact is i've been reading alternative accounts of religion since 12 yrs old...been an agnostic for over 10 years...i was reading Freud's lectures and papers 4 years before any psych course was offered in public school...

with the help of "God" given ability and a little desire, my psych evaluation at 13 put me at a college level education; alas, those damn christians in their ever understanding, forgiving, loving nature wouldn't even put me in advanced classes in our public education system--so, i cracked jokes in classes that were far beneath my education level for about 6 years, finally settling on my HSED instead of a HS diploma---

sure, there are lots of variables which led to my state of affairs, but the number one most prevalent of all influences was the efforts of FALSE CHRISTIANS WHO CAN'T EVEN FOLLOW THEIR OWN DOCTRINE OF LOVE TO FORCE THEIR MIND INTO MINE....IN OTHER WORDS, THEIR EFFORTS TO SHOVE THEIR SILVER SPOONS FILLED WITH THEIR MENTAL EXCREMENTS RIGHT INTO MY MOUTH...

but, of course, their perception would never allow them to conceive a world where someone could possibly know better than themselves, after all, look how close to God they are...

another piece of advice for everyone,unsolicited, of course,

stop trying to control others through punishment, you only hurt your own cause in the end...

Anonomous, human languages arose naturally. Esperanto was created intentionally with all of its features chosen deliberately. That would not be true of English, Spanish, Xhosa, Vietnamese, etc. They arose naturally in the sense that the speakers did not deliberately create their languages. In fact, humans would not have known how to go about it. Once knowledge of the nature of human languages came into being it became possible to engage in the inentional creation of a language -- no such language has ever become the language of any people to my knowedge.

Anonymous, what we need to substantiate Biblical claims is independent evidence of them. There are no historical records from the time of creation of the universe or of the positing of full grown language speaking humans by God in the Garden of Eden. Absent such historical documentation, any belief that the Biblical descriptions of these events is totally withour merit.

Even when we linguists have texts to work with, they are not taken at face value. We do not know, for instance, from the writing systems of a text what sounds symbols correlate with though some inferences are reasonable. Sometimes we run across naive accounts of lingustic forms (especially how words are prounced) but these have to be interpreted with care.

As for your claim that intelligence was required for language to emerge, that is true but it doesn't follow from that that we used that intelligence in a deliberate act to create our languages. Having a certain kind of intelligence and a certain kind of vocal apparatus were preconditions for languages to emerge but they emerged as naturally as did trees or fish or any other naturally occuring thing. That is why we linguists refer to human languages as "Natural Languages."

I am not claiming nor do any of my posts, that one can prove the biblical account of creation.

Nor have I expressed any indication of what I may actually consider to be truth on this issue.

If you are saying "Evolution should be believed until such a time as the biblical account can be demonstrated" then fine, that is your personal choice on how to handle the question of origins. In my analysis, any weakness in the biblical case is not indirectly supporting evidence for evolution, I notice that many people (I am not saying you) do seem to subliminally at least, think in this manner.

In my analysis we have facts, undisputed facts that I or anyone can see; and we have conclusions drawn from those facts.

As a person with a scientific education and training, I consider myself able (within the limits of what I can learn in a given time period) to judge whether such conclusions are justified so faras I am concerned.

I am not one to argue with hard facts, but I am unafraid to speak out against dogma or the implication that by disagreeing with accepted thinking one somehow becomes a buffoon.

Quite simply, I am pretty much convinced that evolution and its claims are at variance with the evidence, I may well be wrong and the massive gaps, the overwhelming lack of transitional forms (and other issues) is due to some hitherto unknown explanation in either paleontology or biology, but at this stage it is clear to me that the fossil record is actullay telling us something profoundly important and we should not be afraid to throw evolution out if it does not fit the evidenc in an intellectually satisfying manner.

In short I think an alternative model, explanation if you will, is demanded here and this is and has been for some time, my position.

It is a fact of life that we each ultimately have our own criteria for decidng whether we accept or reject something as true, it is ultimately a matter of opinion, this is why we have jurys. I like to think that my methods are honest, reasonable and scientific but at the end of the day they cannot help but reflect our inner prejudcices and feeling, only in mathematics can this be avoided.

I see no reason for the opinions of others to hinder in any way a study, investigation etc of that book, or rather books.

If one rejects the Bible as relevant, any of its claims as valid, any of its explanations as true, without taking the time to really really check the facts, the source materials where necessary and be able to honestly say "I have proven, to my satisfcation that this is FALSE, that this CANNOT be true, that this DID NOT HAPPEN" then that is an honest person.

Very very few people do this though, very few, they instead reject it based on what they THINK it says or what they THINK it claims, I have no time for such people.

I'm not saying that this describes you, but it does describe the wholly unscietific attitude so called "educated people" take when it comes to this subject.

It seems to me that everything evolved from one single source such as the "big bang". The introduction of mankind and the introduction of spoken language could have come from aliens for all we know. We really don't know the whole story and we never will. I actually think that those upright, walking apes from Ethiopia were impregnated thousands and thousands of years ago by aliens. Aliens probably couldn't survive on this planet without the biology that the apes had. Existence on this planet cannot be for them for biological reason. The apes were impregnated by the aliens and that is how man was made in "God's image". I'm sure there were a few experiments gone bad before Adam and Eve were finally created. To elaborate, these biological creations made by the aliens were done with beakers and such made from the "dust of the earth" (meaning clay, etc.). Now that they, humans, were "created" they needed a simple story to explain to them where they came from. Not just any story would do though; they needed a story for the ages to last generations and generations. I suppose every ancient civilization had a story of creation. I myself accepted the story of creation as a kid, but now that I became older, I needed more answers. I was more critical with a 21st century analytical mind.

All of our European languages can trace roots back to Sanskrit and Latin, etc. Many languages are forgotten but have left their mark on the human race in subtle ways. From first glance, I may be as white as white can be with northern european lineage, but if you look close enough you can see that the French in me mingled a little with the Moors and the Hungarian part of me has a touch of Gypsy . But actually the Hungarian part of me came from Holland. There was a large wave of immigration in the 1600's from Hungary to Holland. Before that, Hungary and Finland were actually displaced Mongol Gypsy tribes that just happened to settle in those parts of Europe. Fins are very different from Swedish and Norwegians just as Hungarians are very different from Romanians and other Slavs. It's all there in us if you look hard enough just like it is in languages if you search the word origins.

I believe that evolution happened and I am comforatable saying that I am a Christian. You can't deny scientific truths about evolution. To do so would be very ignorant. But I also believe that the story of Creation is just a story and a very loose depiction of evolutional events. Nobody ever wants to discuss this and I'm not sure why. There is a union to be found in the two positions just like if I give you the first letter and the last letter of a word, such as "asratbct", your brain can easily read this word no matter what order the letters in between are in. See, you people need to get over this mental roadblock, but you can't because in doing so, you might feel that you then would have to accept God as being something of a real entity. So you try to find an answer to life and our existence without the existence of a God.

I say to each his own. I wasn't put on this earth to save your souls. I could care less if you even believe that you have a soul, but don't call me ignorant for being a Christian. Now some of you, including Christians, may say that it is not very Christian of me to say such things and for this you can justify your mockery of my position. Understand though, that I see all the disrespect that people have towards our kind and our God. It is disheartening to say the least. I am always willing to impart what little I can to people concerning God, but I am not born to be a soul saver. My purpose on earth is different.

Soon, as the world continues to globalize, we will all evolve to speak one common language. There will always be mother tongues and ethnic differences, but nevertheless mankind will evolve this way eventually (if we don't all die first). You see it as clearly as I do. I feel my view of evolution and creation as a union is a more evolved view because it finds a harmony of two ideas rather than a giant rift. Why make it more complicated that it has to be? Life is simple.

anonymous, I am done with you. You write "If you are saying "Evolution should be believed until such a time as the biblical account can be demonstrated" then fine, that is your personal choice on how to handle the question of origins." I ask you to tell me where I ever said I believed in the theory of Evolution at all. I have asserted I have no faith in any scientfic theory to be correct in all particulars. You are no longer welcome here given that you are incapable of correctly characterizing my positions. What is up with being anaymous? Are you ashamed of your identity?

I am always amused when intelligent people try to hammer out God to fit their logic, just can’t be done. Here is my take on this, I use it as a base line of character; man is the one that has dicker things up in Salem Witch trials and such. Basic question I have – IS MAN INHARENTLY GOOD OR EVIL? Is the Bible the benchmark for deciding this? Without the Bible how do you decide what is right or wrong? Why is killing wrong? Why is adultery wrong? Why can’t I steal your car? I just don’t think you can get around certain truths weather you want to buy in to religious teachings or not.AL

As this is your blog, I will refrain from further participation as you have requested.

However before I depart, I need to point out that you have either missed or ignored the latter part of the paragraph from which you quoted:

"...I notice that many people (I am not saying you) do seem to subliminally at least, think in this manner."

In addition to which you also ommitted the opening sentence of said paragraph, which contains the all important "If you are saying"; given that I have however offended you I will leave you in peace; my name is Hugh incidentally, if you do not approve of people posting ananymously then I suggest that you remove this option from the blog interface.

Hugh, I don't want you to leave, I want you to stop asserting, implying, or intimating I hold positions I don't hold. There was no room for your "if you are saying" since I made absolutely clear I wasn't saying that.

Also, stop claiming people have subliminal beliefs is dirty pool. You can't know that so it is wrong to suggest it. But, then, being religious, you will have a habit of believing things for which you have no solid evidence.

Sir, perhaps you would be kind enough to explain the apparent contradiction between:

"You are no longer welcome here" and "Hugh, I don't want you to leave"?

You could so easily have responded differently, a polite reminder here, a clarification there; instead you requested that I withdraw from the discussion, and then later claim that you did not.

As for me "asserting, implying, or intimating" that you hold positions (which I did not as my postings and my rebuttal clearly show) it is in fact you Sir at whom this accusation must now be leveled.

I have no recollection of having written anything that could lead anyone to justifiably assert (as you have) "But, then, being religious, you will have a habit of believing things for which you have no solid evidence.”

It is I Sir who is done with you, your mean spirited manner is uncalled for, and perhaps it would have been more constructive for the rest of us, if it were you who were to refrain from participation in your own blog.

Hugh, Hugh, The bible is a book, one amoung many such books. I did not say it didn't have historical relevance or a good moral code. It is the idea that it is the undisputable word of God, written by men posessed by His Spirit. That my man, takes BELIEF & FAITH. If I don't have that it does not one damn bit of good for you & your kind to try to convince me of it's relevance. You can tell me all day that you believe. What I think is funny is that you all say you belive out of one side of your mouth & try to convince us out of the other. Maybe it is your selves you are trying to convince

i>t SAID"You pompus Christians, do you think you are the only ones w/a moral code?"

I'm not at all pompous maybe a bit ostentatious and the last time I set foot in a church, I never much plan on going back BUT I must admit the Bible is the source code for morals, Wait! better put would be - Some type of higher being is the source code for right and wrong. Most the time you'll find it in some type of religion. Sure mass murders have a code but not morals; it is more on the lines of survival. AL

Okay folks, sorry it took longer than minutes, I got distracted by a few rounds of cribbage with an old friend...

Now, on to the analysis...

I reread Mike's original post three times while my Winamp was shuffling through Mahler, Bach, and Mozart, so I had divine inspiration...

What I shall do is paste a few select quotes from both Mike and Hugh, then offer commentary on each one seperately along with a conclusion.

Each comment will be numbered 1H for Hugh's first, 1M for Mike's first, 2H, 2M, etc...

My commentary will be numbered 1C for first commentary on 1H and 1M, 2C for second commentary on 2H and 2M, and so on...

1H. Granted the process may have similarities in terms of how to deal with incomplete historic records but the analogy is bad one for a pro evolutionist to take

1M. This puts them in much the same position that historical linguists are in. We have the languages spoken today and a fossil record (i. e., extant writings which are sometimes extensive in nature and sometimes consisting of just bits of writing) and it is possible to infer from similarities among sets of extant spoken languages to the possibility of a common origin and sometimes it is even possible to infer splits, as in the case of IndoEuropean ultimately splitting into the Romance family, the Germanic family, the Slavic family, etc.

2H. I must also object to the incredibly sweeping statement "ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF OF THE ACCOUNTS OF THE BIBLE" you clearly have not read and certainly not studied these ancient scriptures

2M. Meanwhile they provide ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF OF THE ACCOUNTS OF THE BIBLE which Christians purport provides a historical record.

3H. After all, the scriptures are by any standards ancient documents and technically precede any Christian church or sect in existence today. These documents cannot do any harm of themselves, and must be distinguished completely from the much later groups that claim to use it as their source of knowledge simply by association.Don’t judge a book by those that advocate it.

3M. It seems that flaws in the specific details of the theory of evolution drive Christian fundamentalists into a frenzy of denials. The idiocy of this approach to a science that is still in its infancy will be apparent to anyone who knows anything about the development of science -- every science has flaws and every science will always have flaws. The fact is that evolutionary biology is a science that covers a enormous time span in which only bits and pieces of the past are preserved in the fossil record.

4H. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth (no date given). This earth was populated, inhabited by super beings called "angels". Eventually the earth became chaotic, confused and in turmoil and (spiritual darkness) dominated the world. This was a result of angelic disobedience and desire to rule without regard to Gods laws." Then there was angelic rebellion and it was so bad that it became necessary to "recreate" re-beautify the earth and then create humans to populate it.No time is given for how long the “recreating” took, so it is consistent with scripture to assume the demise of dinosaurs and other species may well have been part of this “clean up” but this is simply speculation.

4M. BUT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO PROVE THE CORRECTNESS OF THE DETAILS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE EVOLUTION OF LANGUAGES BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT BECAUSE WE ARE DEALING WITH INSUFFICIENT DATA TO SUPPORT SUCH ACCOUNTS. THE SAME IS TRUE OF THE THEORY OR THEORIES OF EVOLUTION.

5H. None of this (angel disobedience, cleaning up theory) is in any way inconsistent with modern archeology, clearly the earth is ancient and many fossils are also ancient, and surprising as it may seem, this is exactly what the actual source material says, it does NOT say (as so many assume it does) that everything was created 6,000 years ago and in six days, it does not say that.

5M. I think that nonscientists or even scientists with some sort of religious agenda hold sciences to standards of proof that that are considerably higher than any historical science can meet.

6H. Far too many critics of scripture are really, unwittingly criticizing "religion" for it is their only source of knowledge; rather than open mindedly investigating the source material, they choose to assume that "religions" faithfully represent what is written in scripture and this is almost always not the case.

6M. The demonstration I keep waiting for is an overnight movement of Ohio Stadium, where the Ohio State Buckeyes play football, from the side of the Olentangy River it is currently on to the other side, including a rerouting if necessary of the Olentangy River and the Olentangy River Road. This should be an easy thing for a God capable of creating a universe to do

7H. I am not claiming nor do any of my posts, that one can prove the biblical account of creation. Nor have I expressed any indication of what I may actually consider to be truth on this issue.

7M. BUT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO PROVE THE CORRECTNESS OF THE DETAILS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE EVOLUTION OF LANGUAGES BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT BECAUSE WE ARE DEALING WITH INSUFFICIENT DATA TO SUPPORT SUCH ACCOUNTS. THE SAME IS TRUE OF THE THEORY OR THEORIES OF EVOLUTION.

8H. If you are saying "Evolution should be believed until such a time as the biblical account can be demonstrated" then fine, that is your personal choice on how to handle the question of origins. In my analysis, any weakness in the biblical case is not indirectly supporting evidence for evolution, I notice that many people (I am not saying you) do seem to subliminally at least, think in this manner.

8M. BUT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO PROVE THE CORRECTNESS OF THE DETAILS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE EVOLUTION OF LANGUAGES BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT BECAUSE WE ARE DEALING WITH INSUFFICIENT DATA TO SUPPORT SUCH ACCOUNTS. THE SAME IS TRUE OF THE THEORY OR THEORIES OF EVOLUTION.

9H. In my analysis we have facts, undisputed facts that I or anyone can see; and we have conclusions drawn from those facts.As a person with a scientific education and training, I consider myself able (within the limits of what I can learn in a given time period) to judge whether such conclusions are justified so faras I am concerned.

9M. From which I infer that if there is a God, He doesn't give a damn whether we believe in Him or not.

10H. It is a fact of life that we each ultimately have our own criteria for decidng whether we accept or reject something as true, it is ultimately a matter of opinion, this is why we have jurys. I like to think that my methods are honest, reasonable and scientific but at the end of the day they cannot help but reflect our inner prejudcices and feeling, only in mathematics can this be avoided.

10M. From which I infer that if there is a God, He doesn't give a damn whether we believe in Him or not.

=======This should easily be the longest comment Mike has ever had on one of his posts...

1C. Here we have, first and foremost, Hugh's assumption that the similarities between the processes of retracing linguistic and biological evolutionary origins lie in how we deal with incomplete historical records when, in fact, the similarities lie in the fact that we have incomplete records and must deduce the most reasonable conclusions and linkages from the currently available data. The whole proposition is false. And, we can clearly see that Mike is speaking of the fact that this is exactly what doctors do.

2C. Hugh assumes Mike has never touched a bible, which is improper for a scientist to do with no evidence. Mike does make a sweeping statement that could be classified as a stereotype since it is that most non-scientist Christians tend to speak of the King James version of Genesis as though it were HISTORICAL FACT.

3C. I'm not sure if Hugh is damning people for damning the bible he is damning for not including the ancient scripture he speaks of, or if he's schizophrenic...at any rate, Hugh speaks of all the ancient texts which were excluded from the King James bible by Constantine for political gain, then confuses Mike's beef with stupid interpretations as contradictory to his own claim that the same interpretations are stupid...It seems here that Hugh is in the frenzy that Mike uses to describe Christians...

4C. Is there any fossil record of the super human angels that died during this mass chaos? Surely Mike seems willing to accept that science may have not yet found that evidence, he also seems content to accept that science may never find that evidence; I wonder if Hugh would feel comfortable accepting those potential facts?

5C. The conjectured presence of angels on earth "pre-chaos" is a perfectly plausible theory given the tremendous amount of fossil record linking angels to every species on the planet, and science must, therefore, disprove this with new contradictory evidence (that is either sarcasm or i'm delusional with fatigue, one of the two)...

6C. I don't think anyone here has criticized the thing called "scripture" itself, rather, the people who adhere to it, or "religions" with their ignorant attempts at forcing conformity; and, all speculation on God considered, more specifically, on whether or not certain things would be easy for God to do; since scripture (I will bash scripture here) is supposedly God's word, you'd think, since He created the universe, that he could create a book that was universally understood...

7C. Considering Hugh railed against Mike this whole time, literally referred to him as a pro-evolutionist in 1H., directed us all to a 100 page dissertation that critiqued every minor flaw of biological evolution theory which Hugh, himself, authored, AND conjectured that angels were the first entities on earth, I think we're all within' reason to infer that we have a very, very vague idea of what Hugh considers to be the truth on this issue. Mike still seems content with the impossibility of omnipotence.

8C. Let's allow Wittgenstein a crack at Hugh's comment in 8H., he says, "Whereof one cannot speak, one must remain silent, and what has been said here is nonsense." Mike again reiterates his comfort level with the unkown.

9C. I can't find one fact in all of Hugh's ramblings outside the fact that there are ancient scriptures that have different interpretations than the popular King James bible. Mike reasonably deduces that if God wanted us to know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that He exists He would show us.

10C. Hugh finally admits the point Mike was getting at, that this is, largely, speculation; although, the concession that what he says is opinion is diametrically opposed to his assertion that he spake of "facts." Ummm, yeah, Mike again let's us know he's willing to deduce that if God wants Mike to know about His existence, he'll show up for dinner.

CONCLUSION:

I spent way too much time on this when I could've played more cribbage.

Hugh is in a frenzy of denial.

Mike is trying to sort through the truth of the world with the logic of our language.

I need sleep now.

We all love each other (oh wait, that's not a conclusion, that's wishful thinking from a Godless smoker).

:) Sean, What a lot of work you put into that. Well worth reading. Shows me plainly the illogical thinking of some people regarding their religion. I have a therory for that. It is the conflict of faith;belief, vrs. reason & logic. These conflicted people need to pick one or the other.The two cannot be married

Sir, I have read your "analysis" and remain unimpressed with the level of intelligence I am encountering here.

I feel compelled to defend myself against the many fabrications in your post.

It is also (in my opinion) condescending to the other participants to assume that your "analysis" (and a flawed one at that) is a welcome contribution from a scholastic perspective; anyone may read these posts for themselves and draw their own conclusions. I only hope the more rational amongst us are able to draw the obvious conclusions from your "analysis" and its author.

All I am now prepared to do is point out two examples of your inability to absorb what was written.

"5.C The conjectured presence of angels on earth "pre-chaos" is a perfectly plausible theory given the tremendous amount of fossil record linking angels to every species on the planet, and science must, therefore, disprove this with new contradictory evidence (that is either sarcasm or I’m delusional with fatigue, one of the two)..."

My posting about "angels" was demonstrating how a careful study of the scriptures reveals a different description of creation to that that is often assumed (to be described in scripture) by believers and non-believers alike.

It was NOT in any way attempting to prove or even claim that this is what transpired, I have at no point claimed that these events did take place or that physical evidence remains of them.

Your quote labeled as 5C is in fact a quite valid criticism of SCRIPTURE, but not of me Sir. For I did not say these things I simply made some effort to show that scripture appears to claim these things when one considers translational details, with no regard to the efficacy of said claims.

Your comment 5C (amongst others) would have been quite fitting and most welcome had you been a participant to the discussion then underway.

My second complaint (for this is what I am doing Sir), is concerned with 3C

"3C. I'm not sure if Hugh is damning people for damning the bible he is damning for not including the ancient scripture he speaks of, or if he's schizophrenic...at any rate, Hugh speaks of all the ancient texts which were excluded from the King James bible by Constantine for political gain, then confuses Mike's beef with stupid interpretations as contradictory to his own claim that the same interpretations are stupid...It seems here that Hugh is in the frenzy that Mike uses to describe Christians..."

Tell me Sir which "scripture he speaks of" are you referring to? What exactly are you expecting me to have included here? I read 3H again and can find nothing that justifies such a criticism, and even if this were true this is something that could easily be asked of me during the discussion it is not unreasonable for a person to leave out a detail here and there, you or anyone else could easily have simply asked for this. However since I did not specifically refer to "a scripture" this whole issue is fantasy of your making.

It is revealing of your methods Sir that you omit to mention my one scriptural reference, namely Genesis 1:2, a reference that is accompanied by the very text to which it refers; one from the NIV and one from the RSV.

Again, you write "Hugh speaks of all the ancient texts which were excluded from the King James bible" another false statement indicating either inability to read on your part or deliberate intent to misrepresent what was in fact written.

At no point have I referred to any "King James Bible" nor have I referred to "Constantine" so why on earth did you say that I made this "claim". You or anyone else will also see, if you take the trouble to read it again, that I have at no point claimed that anything was "excluded" re-read 3H and please correct me Sir if you can.

You stand exposed Sir as either a liar or a fool and your attempts to discredit me upon the basis of my having made written statements that I in fact did not make (and I challenge you to dispute this), is insulting and an apology would be the gentlemanly response.

SincerelyHugh

PS: It seems that the issues that I and some others were discussing and the interesting points that were arising is now dead in the water, perhaps this was a desirable outcome for some.

Madam, I'd like to comment on your congratulatory post to Deardoff, one that sadly implies something about me.

You write "Shows me plainly the illogical thinking of some people regarding their religion" and I'd like to ask if I may, what exactly this is referring to?

If this is a reference to me or to something I have written, then please let me know why you consider me to be "religious"?

If you consider that quoting or discussing the text of the hebrew scriptures is a basis for labelling a person as "religious" then it is you who is illogical or simply uneducated, because this is not part of any defintion of the term that I am aware of.

You also failed miserably to even notice that many of Deardoff's comments are unfounded, like for example the claims incorrectly attributed to me about "King James Bible" or "Constantine".

Hugh...you're still in a delusional frenzy... I never once said you referred to the king james bible whatsoever; i made an observation, my own observation, in MY conclusion, which is entirely true, that the "pre-chaos" days you spake of were not included in the king james bible...nothing i wrote, even in it's most obvious and scathing sarcasm, came close to implying that you spake of the king james or constantine...i was simply pointing out historical and contemporary fact, something you've been trying to dance around, in a frenzy, since this discussion began...

As far as you whining about my commentary on your description of pre-chaos angelic existence, I was obviously, given the quote "(that is either sarcasm or I’m delusional with fatigue, one of the two)," being very sarcastic about the fact that you followed YOUR description of angels with the claim, "None of this is in any way inconsistent with modern archeology." If you do not want people to assume you are taking a stand, don't take a stand; it's that simple, however, it is OBVIOUS that you've chosen to take a stand; yet, given that you claim you have not taken a stand, I ask, "What the hell are you typing all this nonsense for then?" Your purpose obviously cannot be to educate if you put info on a plate one minute, then shit on it the next; how do you expect anyone to eat it?

I'm sorry only for the fact that you thought my effort was a scholastic endeavor...That fact does lead one to believe that you are somewhat retarded in your ability to discern between scholarly work and satire.

Lastly, throughout your posts, you've made some very shallow attempts to make yourself sound "gentlemanly," and "cordial," and "scholarly." Given the fact that we're posting comments on a blog, given the fact we're not at a book club discussing the bibliographical references at the end of your text book, and given the fact that you've been just as abrasive and "mean spirited," as anybody else here; one can only conclude that you're a self-righteous, pompous, hypocrite who is grossly out of touch with reality and grossly lacking in your ability to empathize with or understand perspectives outside your own head.

But, sincerely, I still love you enough to care for your well being no matter how much you desire to degrade me.

peace n whatnot,

sean

p.s. try smokin' pot to lighten up; you might be surprised to find it can also, at times, provide insights you wouldn't normally think of...Carl Sagan, in an essay published posthumously, admitted that most of his profound theories occurred to him while he was stoned in the shower...you should try it...

I'm an asthmatic for starters, and I resent a young mouthy brat giving me advice, clearly you smoke it by the truckload hence the screwed up cognitive processes you are clearly dealing with, for example:

This is what you wrote:

"...Hugh speaks of all the ancient texts which were excluded from the King James bible by Constantine for political gain..."

then you have the sheer audacity to actually write:

"Hugh...you're still in a delusional frenzy... I never once said you referred to the king james bible whatsoever"

The more I think about it, the more I think that perhaps maybe some of us are related to apes, some a lot more damn closley than others!

hugh said, "but one must carefully examine the Hebrew and other sources in order to see this interpretation of the text."

AND

on the subject of, "Hugh speaks of all the ancient texts,"

sean continued the proposition by introducing a new clause through the word "which," which implies a non-restrictive relation to the previous clause:

sean said, "which were excluded from the King James bible by Constantine for political gain."

The King James bible was created after the hebrew scriptures/"interpretations" that hugh is speaking of

therefore

the proposition,"Hugh speaks of all the ancient texts which were excluded from the King James bible by Constantine for political gain,"

can be taken as true

unless, upon further review,

a. the term "all" is disputed - this could be disputed if hugh spoke of other ancient texts that were created after the creation of the king james.

case "a." is not the case.

b. the term "all is disputed - by claiming that hugh was not speaking of "all" texts that were created before the king james.

case "b's" dispute holds because, though all the scripture that hugh referred to was created prior to the king james, hugh was NOT referring to "ALL," or, the totality of scripture which was created prior to the king james.

c. the term "ancient" is disputed - because one feels it really wasn't that long ago

case "c." won't be allowed, matter of opinion in description, though i think to argue this would be nit-picking

you know...i was gonna keep picking apart that sentence in an effort for some understanding...

but, it's clear that hugh has no desire to understand, rather, only a desire to demand that he is right all the time and then sidestep any accusation that he is being unreasonable; he rationalizes this in his mind by attempting to word his rants in a way that are ambiguous enough to be grossly misunderstood and flexible enough for him to deny having taken any position and the responsibility that goes along with misrepresenting other people's words and slandering their names.

come to think of it, with hugh's seemingly neurotic desire to sound more intelligent than everyone else while illogically backing up any number of irrational points of view and damning everyone else...

he sounds like J_G...

in fact...

considering that J_G has grossly reduced her participation as of late; ironically, since i pissed her off enough to the point where she stated she was "done being nice to you libs."

I'm gonna go ahead and assume that the reason hugh doesn't have a blog account is because he is J_G...

obviously "hugh" has a lot to say

and

obviously "hugh" is proud enough to publish

so i assume

someone like that would be more than willing to sign up for an account on blogger.com; especially after engaging in the community like such...

when language guy confronted hugh about the anonymous thing; if hugh were not a coward, if hugh did not have something to hide, surely hugh would have provided his last name;

we already, including LG, had hugh's first name prior to LG calling him out on his anonymous status

"The more I think about it, the more I think that perhaps maybe some of us are related to apes, some a lot more damn closley than others!"

that is also J_G like, remember when J_G said,

"Of course my theory hasn't changed in years. "if you believe you are decended from muck in a pond you probably are" Have a nice day all.

MORE J_G like "hugh" quotes:

What a stupid little man you are.

(this relates to one posted on my blog by J_G:"Ah, you are weak little man. Your're testosterone is so easy to manipulate. I only need to say a few words and you go into a froth. What a weak little man you are and you have no control over it either. I can walk away and laugh at you. You will have to stew about it because you are weak and you the stupid little man that you are will only think of ways to try and get me back. You think with the little head little man. Have a nice day :-)"

to sum it up Hughey-baby, nobody wants to talk to you because you constantly mangle and misrepresent them through what you think is logic--

you're like a toddler in the candy isle with a poor parent, unable to understand that you can't have the sugars you're after cuz mommy can't afford it...you rant and rave and accuse mommy of not loving you and lieing to you just because she won't adhere to your whiny manipulative ways...

grow up ya terdy boy-get off mama's nipples and state your opinion...

if you can't do that, then get off the pulpit and stop damning every opinion espoused here;

if you're not J_G; and, upon further review of many of your earliest post, it's about 50-50, in my experience with J_G, i would imagine her vocabulary is far feeble to yours, as well as her overall intellect...

however; you're still a raging hypocrite, not to mention a coward...

the only view any of us can conclude you hold is that you hate all dogma, whether it be regarding evolution theory or creation theory; in which case, your original beef with mike had no merit since his original post VERY SPECIFICALLY STATES HE IS NEITHER PRO-EVOLUTION NOR PRO-CREATIONISM;

and;

whether you like it or not, mike was correct to take note that you misrepresented him because you explicitly referred to him as a pro-evolutionist...

people have stated their opinion that intelligent design should not be in science class - you've replied by belittling their opinion and downplaying science in general as "incomplete"

you also chose, for whatever reason, to enlighten us all as to your great knowledge of various interpretations of scripture...

though, you made it clear you take no stand, whatsoever; i assume this is because you're a yellow bellied coward or you have some personal agenda you're trying to hide from us all...

either way; you still possess all the qualities described in the previous post, as does J_G...

get over yourself-

for clarification-

my position:

evolution belongs in science class

ALL religion should be taught in public school as a means to promote understanding and tolerance, however, various religous interpretations should be taught in a classification of courses called, "theology"

i'm open to listening to and learning from the knowledge anyone has to offer.....it's people like you and J_G who can't seem to tolerate the idea of different perspectives; though, you seem to believe otherwise, so i still conclude you're a hypocrite and delusional

I really dont know whats going in that stoned cranium of yours buddy, you wrote both of these statements:

"...Hugh speaks of all the ancient texts which were excluded from the King James bible by Constantine for political gain..."

and

"Hugh...you're still in a delusional frenzy... I never once said you referred to the king james bible whatsoever"

Then you try to lecture me (and anyone else that is bored enough to be followingh all this) into accepting that this is not in any way misleading, rather the epitome of good logic and I have no basis for objecting, none; my objections are groundless and all due to my own irrationality. Isn't that what you are ultimately claiming?

The fact that nothing in any of my posts is consistent with your statement, has no bearing upon this issue so far as you are concerned.

Your also claiming by direct implication that it is crystal clear to any reader of your sentence (except of course retarded old me), that I did not refer to:

Constantine, King James, politics, excluded gain

and it is my own feeble intellect that perceives the sentence otherwise, the fact that NONE of these terms appear ANYWHERE in ANY of my postings is immaterial in your mind.

I havent yet bothered to even mention the fact that Constantine played zero part in the King James Bible, none whatsoever, and it would have been somewhat difficult for him to have done so given the fact (which of course you may elect to correct me on) that Constantine died approx 1,300 years before the King James translation was published, duuuhh!!!

if this is as clearly as you can express yourself then I suggest you put out the reefer and get cleaned up, perhaps a stretch in rehab might really help?

Your now exposed as an ass, your reasoning that convinces you that I am "J_G" is an exercise in idiocy no doubt driven by paranoia (not an uncommon side effect of THC use I might add), like I said to Lang Guy recently, if you allow people to comment and post anonymously then on what basis does one complain when they do it?

My reasons are immaterial and none of your damn business brat. The Blog clearly permits one to post Anonymously and I did, if you dissaprove so what? who gives a damn what you think about this?

Does ANYONE here not have an opinion in this issue? since it is all about blogging and resolving disputes and misunderstandings, the issues here are relevant to all of us, so speak your mind do I or do I not have a reasonable complaint reagrding this:

"...Hugh speaks of all the ancient texts which were excluded from the King James bible by Constantine for political gain..."

and

"Hugh...you're still in a delusional frenzy... I never once said you referred to the king james bible whatsoever"

Is there some reason why i.d. must be taught in school? Why can't people interested in intelligent design get that outside of school? I guess I ask this because some people seem to be practically frothing about the fact that it is not and yet, THEY know about i.d.... how did they get this knowledge without going to school? I mean, was it spontaneous, god-given knowledge? Saying that i.d. must be in schools implies that the children will not receive a full education (GASP)without its inclusion. This focus on i.d. when literacy and math are in the tank just plain scares this former teacher. Jesus! (tongue-in-cheek)

Also, let's look at this from a teacher's perspective: Teacher Suzy does not go to church although she is spiritual. She goes about her way, does not lie, cheat, steal, murder, covet, judge others, and etc. Still, she is a private person and does not believe in any form, subtle or otherwise, of proselytizing. Teacher Suzy is now forced to teach i.d. in her science class. Now, do you think that Teacher Suzy is going to do justice to the concept of i.d.?

(frankly, this too is a little scary, because I find myself asking where we shall draw the line: before teachers can teach science, must their belief system be ascertained to assure that they will give i.d. proper attention?)

hrmm... wouldn't it be better if that was taught by someone who believed it? For such an important concept, (notice the lack of the word theory) it would seem that the supporters of this concept would want to make sure that only the most qualified would teach it. ?

Okay, so there are heaps of things that I'm interested in, but I tell you, much of it is not taught in school; I go to the public library, research the net, and/or join a community group or what-have-you to fill in the gaps.

It seems to me that me even though most schools don't include i.d. there are plenty of people out there who know plenty of things about it. They are, in fact, so well educated about it that they are comfortable in their total and absolute adamancy that it is correct.

Why, oh why, must it be taught in the schools? If the answer is that it is a science, well, people claim that lots of things are qualify as science-- how do we choose? Or rather, *scary shiver* WHO decides?

Why is there this total focus on other people and other people's children? What happened to minding your own business? What happened to instilling critical thinking skills so that folks can suss stuff out by themselves. People! We have serious problems in this country, in this world; forcing the addition of i.d. is going to solve them? What about setting some freakin-frackin priorities? Like say, literacy…

[does anyone else think it's funny that i.d. is perilously close to the Id-- the part of us that has no real perception of reality and focuses on the pleasure principle? lol!)

I think one of the issues is that the evolutionary model is to all intents and purposes, regarded as fact, beyond dispute, by educators so far as it being the explanation for the origin of humans and other organisms.

Yet many scientists have and continue to raise serious objections to the model, many of these call into question the feasibility of it in fact. So far as I am concerned ID is a valid scientific model, it has nothing to do with religion or scripture, not the model itself.

I quite understand the reticence that many have about religious doctrine becoming an influence of what science is taught in schools, and I share that.

The infuriating thing is (and I've been subjected to this here) the knee-jerk assumption that those who advocate ID even in general terms are "religious" or are pursuing a religious agenda, I most certainly am not and I think an honest reading of my posts will support this claim.

LG has made clear that he does not consider evolution (or other models of reality) as "real" or "beyond question" (apologies if I misrepresent your position) this is commendable and (despite our flamings) not too dissimilar to my position.

Given this position though, one is forced to explain why one model is taught and not the other?

One of the obvious problems that ID faces in my opinion, is this: If ID is the better fitting model (which of course is disputed), then it begs the question of how the existence of a "designer" impacts our culture?

Accepting ID pretty much means accepting an external intelligence, call it God or whatever, but it really means accepting this and there are a great many people for whom this is an unacceptable state of affairs.

Take Richard Dawkins for example, on the record as saying that evolution is fact (read: other viable explantions cannot exist) and a staunch atheist. Naturally even considering ID is unacceptable to him, because it carries the obvious risk that he would have to reverse this dogmatic position, not something many of us are capable of.

In other words some people believe evolution because it is a "godless" explanation, rather than because it is the best fitting model. Basically ID should be taught if it is a better "fit" rather than it not being taught because it leads to some uncomfortable questions about God or designer etc.

I have just discovered what seems to be an extremely relevant book, though I have yet to read it.

http://www.darwinanddesign.com/

Of interest is the various reviews of the book.

Meyer is a staff member at:

http://www.discovery.org/

From what I can gather Meyer's position is that there is a debate, and there are distinguished scientists on both sides, so teach the debate, let students see it, dont deny that there is a real debate underway.

As far as the debate as to whether or not such and such statements were attributed to you, it seems irellevant since you've made it perfectly clear to all which parts you do not associate yourself with...

As far as my error regarding the chronological order of events (the error referring to constantine/king james), I was misinformed by a misinformed Catholic (or biased Catholic, if it were...) and will do my own research to fix my knowledge of events...

at any rate; i've moved on to more important things relating to the Intelligent Design Theory and Evolution Theory...

I feel blessed to have found F.S. Monsterism; and, would like to make it known here and now that I, the prophet Fresh Parmesan, have received the first divine revelations of this Intelligent Design Theory...

You can find info about Flying Spaghetti Monsterism at

http://www.venganza.org/index.htm

and,

you can find The Pastafarian Revelations at

http://pastafarianrevelations.blogspot.com/

peace n whatnot,

sean

ps-i hope we can still be friends hugh...for i really do appreciate the diverse insights here

There is a God, you seem to be in quite a bit or denial. Enough denial that in order to make yourself feel better about your beliefs you need to drag His name in the mud. Im not usually a doomsday prophet, but there will come a day where everyone will be held accountable for all their thoughts, words, and deeds. I hope you realize your foolishness before it is to late.

Why would God have to perform some sort of miracle for you to believe Him? God is above performing a couple card tricks for your entertainment. Have you read the Bible ever? Jesus was tempted numerous times to call down angels to save him, did he? No. God's not going to do awesome miracles just so you can go "Sweet,now I know there is a God" God wants you to have faith without sight. Is it easy? Of course not. Its not easy to understand how God created the earth. But until you have faith, you will continue to make fun of things our earthly minds can't grasp.

I think it is because they feel sufficient anxiety about their faith that they feel the necessity to bolster it, especially given the resistance some of their desired social reforms (anti-abortion, prayer in the schools, etc.) from skeptics. It helps that they don't understand what it means to prove something.

The irony of this is that the Christian message all along is that they should have faith. they need to read Immanuel Kant.